Indian Civil Rights Act – Page 5

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals Decision in Tribal Redistricting Dispute

November 30, 2015November 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Woods v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council:

An excerpt:

Despite the long and convoluted history of this case, much has been accomplished and both parties are to be commended for the positive results to date. As noted by Attorney Gunn in his letter of September 21, 2015, which is now part of the record in this case:

… the Tribal Council does not seek to undermine the rights and values enshrined in the Tribal Constitution or the Indian Civil Rights Act. To the contrary, the Tribal Council has honored and protected those rights by enacting redistricting legislation that ensures, and will continue to ensure, proportionate representation in the Tribal Council for all Tribal citizens.

There may still be differences of opinion in the details, but not on the overarching Tribal constitutional principle that mandates Tribal Council reapportionment. This, indeed, is worthy and noteworthy advance.

To be clear, while this case is over, the process of reapportionment and redistricting is not. Both sides realize that there is more to come, especially in regards to the Tribal Council’s commitment to taking a new tribal census in 2017 to guide redistricting for 2018 elections. See, e.g., Tribal Council Resolution 10-2015-CR. The implementation of this Tribal Council resolution may or may not lead to new litigation. If there is such litigation, the issue of Tribal Council sovereign immunity may be raised as a defense at that time. If it is, both the trial court and this Court shall rule upon it.

Ann Tweedy on Tribal Gun Regulation

April 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ann Tweedy has published “Indian Tribes and Gun Regulation: Should Tribes Exercise Their Sovereign Rights to Enact Gun Bans or Stand-Your Ground Laws?” (SSRN) in the Albany Law Review.

Abstract:

This essay examines tribal laws relating to guns. It then discusses whether tribes whose values accord with either gun bans or stand-your-ground laws would be well-served to enact such laws. It concludes that enforcement difficulties and related problems make both types of laws very costly and that tribes are likely to be best served by enacting more modest firearm regulations and/or protecting the right to bear arms (without expanding the right to self-defense). The essay also concludes that the risks tribes face in the area of firearms regulation in particular contravene Congress’ intent in enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act.

(Likely) Fake Indian Claim Dismissed by Detroit Federal Court

February 9, 2015February 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in El Nefertit v. Powelson (E.D. Mich.):

1 Complaint

5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

Ann Tweedy on Tribal Gun Regulations

February 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ann Tweedy has posted “Tribes and Gun Regulation: Should Tribes Exercise Their Sovereign Rights to Enact Gun Bans or Stand-Your-Ground Laws?” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

This essay examines tribal laws relating to guns. It then discusses whether tribes whose values accord with either gun bans or stand-your-ground laws would be well-served to enact such a law law. It concludes that enforcement difficulties and related problems make both types of laws very costly and that tribes are likely to be best served by enacting more modest firearm regulations and/or protecting the right to bear arms (without expanding the right to self-defense). The essay also concludes that the risks tribes face in the area of firearms regulation in particular contravene Congress’ intent in enacting the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Minnesota COA Holds Warrantless Search of Tribal Casino Patron Not Covered by ICRA

December 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State v. Yang. An excerpt:

Appellant challenges his convictions of three counts of controlled substance crime in the first degree, arguing that security guards employed by the Mystic Lake Casino Hotel violated his Fourth Amendment protections under the Indian Civil Rights Act and the United States Constitution when they conducted a warrantless search of his satchel in a hotel room and discovered methamphetamine and marijuana. Because the security guards were not acting as tribal governmental agents, appellant’s rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were not violated. We affirm.